There are many things about the global cooling/global warming/climate change/climate disruption agenda that confuse and frustrate me. I've not been shy about voicing them.
1. The arrogance of the movement is profound.
The idea that man's feeble efforts to emit less carbon could make a fraction of a dent in the cosmological and geological realities that give rise to climates, weather, and environmental systems is as silly as could be. Man is capable of some remarkable hubris, to be sure. But little else rivals the arrogance of purporting to possess the ability to alter climates and weather by passing laws.
2. The hypocrisy of activists is overwhelming.
Men and women who emit more carbon in one week of powering their multiple mansions than an average person does in one year, are going to lecture on the vital importance of self-sacrifice? The experts who chide private citizens for their desire to travel freely, warning that such self-serving behavior only goes to imperil the planet, are themselves frequently jetting off to exotic locations in hundreds of carbon-belching private jets to further discuss the problem. It's obscene.
3. The classism inherent in the cause is grotesque.
The proposals to limit emissions and to eliminate entirely the use of fossil fuels can never, and will never be forcibly applied to industrial juggernauts like China and India. While those nations possess the global authority to merely ignore the benchmarks, third world countries will have no choice but to acquiesce. The world's wealthiest will continue to thrive while putting their foot firmly on the neck of developing nations, thereby locking them into unrelenting poverty all in the name of "saving the planet."
But beyond all those frustrations, there has been one persistent, nagging, irritating question I have had for years and have never heard even a remotely adequate answer to:
What makes our current climate optimal? Why is it the best we could have or want? What is so ideal about it?
I understand we are to be panicked over rising temperatures, but I'm asking why? Aren't there multiple examples of how lives of human beings would be improved should our global climate warm?
Don't misunderstand: I've heard all the doomsday scenarios about rising ocean water, shrinking shorelines, and intensified weather events. But perhaps we could set aside the over-educated scientific jargon and apply just a modicum of common sense to the issue.
First, we've already eclipsed multiple "points of no return." Supposing we really have, and there's no way to turn things around now anyway, wouldn't it be a wiser use of our time, effort, and resources to begin to prepare for a warmer climate rather than futile efforts of building a plaster wall to hold back a freight train?
For instance, if sea levels are truly going to rise over the course of the next hundred years to the point that some small islands in the south Pacific are going to be completely underwater, couldn't we make a plan on where we could help those people move to a safer location sometime in the next century?
Moreover, is it not somewhat ironic that climate alarmists retreat every winter (when it's cold) to hold their emergency climate conferences in tropical (where it's warm) locations? The recent climate summit was held in Sharm El-Sheik, a coastal resort city in Egypt where it averaged in the low 80s. They did not hold it in the Arctic Circle, and there's a reason: warmer means more inhabitable.
A warmer global climate might very well lead to some of those unfortunate realities we hear about so often thanks to hysterics and their faithful media lackeys. But would it not also mean extended growing seasons, the potential for parts of the Tundra to melt, leading to far more arable land and increased crop yields? Would that not do wonders for the starving portions of the world?
Obviously if islands were swallowed up or coastlines were encroached upon by rising ocean waters in the worst-case scenarios, some land would clearly become uninhabitable. But how much more land that is currently uninhabitable because of its harsh, cold climates would offset those losses by becoming temperate?
And if global health is a concern, I get it. But consider:
I have no doubt that very sophisticated scientific minds would blast these ideas as being painfully simplistic.
The funny thing is that historically, reality tends to be the same way.
